Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of Eddie August Schneider (1911-1940)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 16:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

And which image is a copyright violation? All have been licensed from their original sources and are noted in the text. Other images are from Eddie Schneider himself and were his publicity photos and are also marked with the appropriate copyright notices. So please be specific and tell me which ones are considered violations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Images of Eddie August Schneider (1911-1940)
This page is an image archive. Most of the images come from the 1930s and are therefore probably covered by copyright (the uploader claims them to be public domain but provides no evidence).

Hello! The copyright for Gone With the Wind (1939) expired in 1989. Images from the 1930's are NOT covered by copyright. The only issue to debate is whether these photos are useful or not.

An image gallery is not sufficently educational for a fair use claim. Therefore most of these images should be removed as copyright violations. The others should be transfered to commons, and this page deleted   &mdash; Zeimusu | Talk 14:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm pretty sure there's a policy against photo galleries such as this. Also, Eddie's article is littered with them too. All but 2 ot 3 should be removed. -R. fiend 15:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article that really is only a photo gallery is not something you would find in an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 18:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia has long had image gallery pages (eg, there are a couple linked from the Pompeii article) when such images are informative and too numerous to include in the main article without clutter, though such have become less common since the start of the Wikimedia Commons. I know of no blanket policy against image galleries if they are encyclopedicly done (for print parallels, my old Americana has blocks of pages of photographs not integrated into the text), and I strongly disagree with the suggestion that any and all photo galleries should be deleted. IMO to keep or delete this article should be based on specifics. This one IMO does seem a bit of overkill, and I'm not sure the copyright status of all the images is adiquately researched and taggged. -- Infrogmation 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I think such gallery pages are the exception rather than the rule. Certainly for a minor biographical article like this such images are overkill, copyrighted or not. And I maintain that the article on the person has too many photos. -R. fiend 21:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Infrogmation, the gallery you are referring to, Gallery of Pompeii and Herculaneum, is an exception because it supports content from Pompeii. My point is that a photo gallery by itself without any substantial content is not encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 03:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. One or two are fair use, a gallery of them is a copyright violation.  RickK 23:14, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with RickK. Delete. Especially when most of them are likely copyvios. Mgm|(talk) 09:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.